Re: Hypothetical possibilities

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
 In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
 [ .... ]
 

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

 This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
 Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.
 May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
 Thanks!
 

I have made slight changes to what I have been saying nearly every day.
This is my newest clearest way of saying it:
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
DDD correctly simulated by any pure function HHH cannot
possibly reach its own return instruction.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer